Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ramanuj Singh & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 3 February, 2014
Author: Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
Bench: Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
1
3.2.2014
ac
W.P.L.R.T. 321 of 2013
Ramanuj Singh & Anr.
-versus-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee,
Mr. Saptangsu Basu,
Ms. Arati Dutta,
Mr. Anirban Dutta.
... For the Petitioners.
Mr. Nibaran Kumar Das.
... For the Respondent Nos. 5 & 6.
Mr. Sadananda Ganguly, Mr. Lalit Mohon Mahata, Mr. Supratim Dhar.
... For the State.
Though in pursuance of the order passed by a Learned Single Judge of this Court on 16th September, 1991 in Civil Rule No. 11624(W) of 1984; the petitioners were allowed to submit a fresh return in 'Form-B' exercising option to retain land upto the ceiling limit as provided under section 6(1) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act and the concerned Revenue Officer by his order being no. 13 dated 3rd April, 1995 passed a fresh order of vesting in Misc. Case No. 2 of 1991 and thereby allowing petitioners to retain the land mentioned in schedule 'C' wherein the land in dispute was included, but subsequently, the Revenue Officer again initiated a fresh proceeding for vesting presumably for correction of earlier order of vesting on the ground that the land in dispute being originally recorded as 'Hut', the said land was not retainable in terms of the provision contained in West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, though by mistake the said land was allowed to be retained by the raiyat earlier. Ultimately an order of vesting was passed in the said proceeding without notice to the petitioner.
The initiation of such proceeding and the order of vesting passed thereon was ultimately quashed by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court on 17th August, 2007 in Review 2 Petition No. 1551 of 2007 arising out of WPLRT No. 728 of 2004 on the ground that the order of vesting which was passed in the subsequent proceeding could not be retained on the sole ground that such order of vesting was passed without giving fresh notice of hearing to the writ petitioners. While quashing the said vesting order, Their Lordships, however, permitted the State respondents to start afresh by giving notice of hearing to the petitioners from the stage when the state respondents recognised the writ petitioners as raiyat in pursuance of the order passed by Justice N. K. Mitra as stated above. Their Lordships was, further, pleased to make it clear that in the event a fresh proceeding is initiated, all points available to the writ petitioners under the law, including the point of maintainability of the fresh vesting proceeding, can be availed of by the writ petitioners on the fresh hearing.
Though subsequently, the Revenue Officer initiated another proceeding being Case No. 2 of 2013 under section 57 read with section 42(2a) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953 but the same was ultimately dropped by the Revenue Officer by his order passed on 3rd December, 2013 vide Order No. 4.
Thereafter, the impugned notice was issued for revising the finally published record of rights. By the impugned notice, the petitioner was called upon to appear before the Hearing Officer on 13th December, 2013 at 11.00 a.m. at the chamber of the concerned Revenue Officer. The said proceeding was registered as Case No. 03 of 2013.
The legality and/or propriety of the said notice issued by the Revenue Officer on 3rd December, 2013 appearing at page 141 of the writ petition was challenged by the petitioners before the West Bengal Land Reforms & Tenancy Tribunal, 1st Bench. The said tribunal application which was registered as O.A. No. 3526 of 2013 (LRTT) was disposed of without deciding the legality of the said notice. The Learned Tribunal disposed of 3 the said application with the hope and trust that the Sub Divisional Land & Land Reforms Officer, Asansol, will definitely pass a reasoned order in the proceeding pending before the concerned authority.
The legality and/or propriety of the said order passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms & Tenancy Tribunal, 1st Bench, on 12th December, 2013 in O.A. No. 3526 of 2013 (LRTT) is challenged before us in this writ petition by the petitioners herein.
After hearing Mr. Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Ganguly, learned Advocate, appearing for the State respondents and after considering the impugned notice, we find that no reason has been assigned by the concerned Revenue Officer in the impugned notice for initiation of such a proceeding for revision of the finally published revisional record of rights.
In our view, such a notice cannot be maintained as, the said notice does not disclose the reason for which such a proceeding was initiated for revision of the finally published record of rights. Even the records relating to the said proceeding has not yet been produced before us to substantiate the justifiability for initiation of such a proceeding.
We are of the view that the impugned notice issued by the Revenue Officer and the Sub Divisional Land & Land Reforms Officer, Asansol, on 3rd December, 2013 appearing at page 141 of the writ petition is illegal. Thus, the said notice stands quashed. Consequently the orders passed in connection with the said proceeding stands quashed.
The writ petition is, thus, allowed.
It is, however, made clear that this order will not preclude the State respondents from taking steps in accordance with law.
4The impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal on 12th December, 2013 in O.A No. 3526 of 2013 (LRTT), stands quashed.
The writ petition is, thus, disposed of.
(Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.) (Ishan Chandra Das, J.)